Hello, The SIP recommendation tell us that the port must be present if it is not a default port (5060).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INVITE sip:atcavolt...@10.48.6.189:1872;tgrp=CGR01REM;trunk-context=volte.com SIP/2.0 To:<sip:atcavolt...@volte.com> From:ATCAvolte08 <sip:atcavolt...@volte.com:1869>;tag=3012.25153171.5121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Maybe the port (from ,to) can help to build the history of the call. If you remove , it tell me that UA had used the default port 5060 to originated the call , and it is not TRUE. Regards! Valdemar -----Original Message----- From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of ext Kevin P. Fleming Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:42 PM To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] What is the use of port number in SIP-URI in FROM header? On 01/04/2011 03:30 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > IMO, if a UA is given a URI to call, it generally has no business > messing with it in any way. Removing the port is altering the URI, and > should only be done by something in the domain of the URI that is > familiar with the policies for construction of URIs within that domain. > > If the UA is *constructing* the URI, based on some policy rules known to > it for such construction, then it can construct one URI with the port > (for the R-URI) and one without (for the to-uri.) > > Messing with URIs from other domains is like modifying a postal address > for a recipient in a foreign country. You likely don't know the > conventions for formatting postal addresses in that place and have a > good chance of rendering your mail undeliverable. Note that this discussion was in relation to URIs in the From and To headers, not the request URI. Since these URIs are pretty much only used for dialog matching, and the rules say it is recommended to ignore any port numbers that appear in the URIs, if a UA was to send requests in a dialog with differing ports in the URIs it sent and expect them to be matched by the receiver, it would be broken. > > Thanks, > Paul > > On 1/4/2011 10:39 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote: >> 2011/1/4 Brett Tate<br...@broadsoft.com>: >>> I'm not sure how the SIP working group intended RFC 3261 section 19.1 Table >>> 1 paragraph indicating "SHOULD ignore any disallowed components" to apply >>> to section 19.1.4's URI comparison rules. >> >> Fuly unclear. We could give our opinnion here, and any other person >> could have his own opinnion :) >> >> >>> However it might be problematic if you drop received To/From ports when >>> sending requests within dialog. >> >> IMHO it's much better just to ignore port in From/To URI when comparing >> URI's. >> > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kflem...@digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
